Colin Berry writes (posted with permission):
I request that you remove the libellous comment posted by Stephen E Jones, since you will know that I have not demanded anything. Everything was phrased as a request that you seek permission. added to which I made clear that I did not regard your use of my graphics as fair use if they are used to adorn headline attacks on me or my views.
I would have posted to Jones’s own site, but for the fact that he now reports any comment I send there as "spam". The man is a menace, and is now using YOUR site to get at me, while effectively denying me a right of reply. Repeat – the man is a menace.
Are you going to respond to my latest posting? If not, I am minded to refer the phoney science that you claim represents the position of 4 named investigators to the UK’s Royal Society as an open letter. I won’t do that behind your back, believing as I do in total transparency. I have prepared a draft, and will publish that first as a declaration of intent. Are you sure the 3 living members wish to be associated with your phoney science if it appears in a future RS newsletter, inviting comments from influential chemists and physicists?
I wrote back:
Hi Colin. Thanks for writing. I’ve looked at Stephen’s comment and find nothing sufficiently objectionable with it that would prompt me to remove it. I guess it is a matter of interpretation. Anyway, you are more than welcome to comment. As a matter of fact I have been thinking of publishing this letter to get your point of view out there. Why not, instead, write something so it appears the way you want it to.
Am I going to respond to your latest posting? I’m not inclined to do so so please feel free to write to the Royal Society. Again, you are free to comment. Would you like to write a full article? I’d be happy to publish it if you send it along.
I actually agree with Colin’s criticism of the statement in a previous posting that “Drs. Jackson, Rogers, Di Lazzaro and Heimburger, all independently at different times, have adequately shown that . . . heat cannot form a physically superficial discoloration of linen fibers.” They four have not. Not one of them has. Colin is right. But I must point out that Colin is completely wrong to attribute that statement to Dan Porter. Dan is quoting a reader who wrote to him just as Colin did. It is so obvious. How did Colin get this so wrong.
Dan is very good about letting any of us have our say here, right or wrong. He does so whether or not he agrees. That letter was an example and this letter from Colin is an example. So are the articles by Yannick. Sometimes Dan will comment and sometimes he doesn’t.
What the “4 named investigators” have done, however, is show that heat could not have produced the sort of superficial discoloration that exists in the shroud image. “Sort of” are the operative words here.
If Colin can get this matter before the Royal Society it will be wonderful for shroud science. I say go for it.
Paulette is right.
I am currently working on the “scorch hypothesis” with various parameters.
I previously wrote that it is impossible to obtain a faint discoloration of the heated side without a (fainter) discoloration of the reverse side. This is not true. In this sense, Colin is right about the superficiality at fabric level. But the time/temperature parameters needed are very narrow. There are also other facts that I found in Jackson’s paper (I had it) which I can confirm that are hard to explain with this hypothesis.
But today I did look at the threads under the microscope.
I will not explain here why, but I am now sure that the scorch hypothesis do not match the observed FACTS on the Shroud.
Yes Paulette : not only heat (whatever the mean) “could not have produced the sort of superficial discoloration that exists on the Shroud image” (I will show that in detail) but even a very mild heat produces something that does not exist on the Shroud image.
if Colin is going to write an open letter to the Royal Society, I simply suggest him to wait for the paper I’ ll write here (the difficulty is not what I see under the microscope but to obtain good photographs). Since the subject is much more complex than I thought, my paper will be more complete and therefore time consuming.
Thank you for your patience.
Thibault please remember that you also promised to write some new findings/reflections of yours about the role of amines in Rogers hypothesis.
John Jackson from STURP have already check this out in dept and like Thibault said : the time-temperature is so narrow to obtain the superficiality of the Shroud’s image that IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN WITH TODAY’S BEST TECHNOLOGIES !!!
So why wasting your time boys on that dead end road ???
Don’t you realized that the Shroud is a real Shroud of a real crucified man who left lots of mirror images of humid blod clots (with some liquid post-mortem blood at the feet) PRIOR to the formation of the body image ? I think you should read again my paper about the evidence of the bloodstains if you’re still not convinced of these basic SCIENTIFIC FACTS. Consequently, the body image HAS to come from some kind of interaction between the corpse and the cloth and has I know, a dead body never emit enough heat to scorch a linen cloth !!! He he ! :-)
Colin, Thibault and all the rest should spend their precious time searching what possible biological-chemical reactions could produce a superficial image like the one that is on the Shroud instead of chasing this wild rabbit (the scorch hypothesis) that has been set aside a long time ago by science) ?
Really, I don’t understand. It’s like someone who would still try to reproduce the Shroud with a painting or a rubbing technique. Wake up folks ! All these things have already been set aside by science !!! THE SHROUD IS NOT AN ARTWORK. PERIOD. If it was, it’s been a very long time since we would have been able to reproduce it !!! And if you’re still not convinced, then just show me one artist that can reproduced the bloodstains we see on the Shroud with that degree of forensic detail, along with the same nature (i.e. a blood that don’t come from a complete blood in liquid form but from exudates of blood clots). As Adler wrote cleverly about that : “We have shown by immunological tests that the blood is definitely primate blood, and that it must have been taken from the exudate of a clot at a certain point in the clotting process. An artist would therefore have needed the exudate from the wounds of a severely tortured man, or baboon, and he would need to take the substance within a 20-minute period after the clotting had begun, and paint it on the cloth with the serum edges and all the other forensic precision that we see there. I believe most reasonable people would conclude that it is simply impossible that an artist could have produced the blood imprints on the Shroud of Turin. Rather, it is logical to conclude, from the nature and characteristics of the bloodstains on the Shroud, that the cloth once enfolded the body of a severely beaten and crucified human being.”
After reading this comment from Adler, I think I don’t have anything more to say except that in my book, it’s a total waste of time to still verify any of these artwork techniques versus the Shroud. All this time would be better spend in searching for a possible biological-chemical interaction between a dead corpse that has been tortured for a long period of time prior to his death and a linen Shroud made with an antique method. I dream of the day when people interested in the Shroud’s image formation will focus on this instead of losing their time again and again on any artwork technique that you can imagine…
After all, think about that fact : We have an image of a crucified body on a linen cloth. In that context, don’t you think the very best hypothesis would be that there was some kind of biological-chemical interaction between these 2 features (the body and the cloth) ??? It’s pretty incredible to note how people tend to look anywhere but there when they seek an explanation for the Shroud !!!! It’s like there are only two extreme paths to follow : It must be an artwork of some sort or it must be a miraculous process of some sort linked with the Resurrection ! Can’t we get back in-between please ??? In face of all the data, fact and observations we know about the Shroud, I’m convinced more than ever that it is the most rational direction to follow if we really want to find a scientific solution concerning the Shroud… And meditate on that: We already know that this is exactly the answer for the bloodstains (i.e. a complete biological and natural transfer that came from an interaction between a crucified corpse and a linen cloth) !!!
So, why wouldn’t it be also the same kind of natural interaction that have created the body image on the Shroud (i.e. some kind of still undetermined biological-chemical reaction) ??? Right now, I really don’t see one good reason to search elsewhere… Because it’s supposed to be Jesus on the cloth ? That kind of thinking is totally unscientific and in fact, this is pure bullsh** !!! Sincerely, are we living in the modern era or are we getting back to the darkest age of the medieval time ? If we want to live like modern people, WE GOT TO FOLLOW THE FACTS. And right now, the facts are saying clearly and loud : The Shroud IS NOT the product of a forger who would have used some kind of a scorch technique. PERIOD. And if you think for 2 seconds that all this heat necessary to create the image came from the Resurrection, then BRAVO ! because you just step out of the scientific method because anyone knows that a dead body doesn’t emit that kind of heat…
Yannick your statement; “And if you think for 2 seconds that all this heat necessary to create the image came from the Resurrection, then BRAVO ! because you just step out of the scientific method” ….Sadly this statement is just WRONG.
Many have made the same errogant error. It should be restated as; “you have just stepped out of our KNOWN scientific method and level of knowledge”… Althought the ‘resurrection’ cannot be reproduced in a lab with our present scientific abilities, one should always keep in mind, we DO NOT have a FULL grasp of all scientific matters either!…We are always finding new amazing things everyday in the world of science! It may very well be possible the image was formed by ‘something’ we have no knowledge of, at present, something that is lightyears ahead of our present ‘science’ or ‘thinking’. To assume our scientific knowledge, ‘at the moment’, is anywhere near its pinnacle is nonsense, childish, short sighted and in a basic sense extremely arrogant.
To state that Shroud investigation has been like a pendulum, with art at one end, and a miraculous method on the other is also rediculous. There have been several hypothesis raised, and some attempted in between those two theories over the years; Including the maillard hypothesis, which even it’s main proponent (R.Rogers) found wanting ON IT’s OWN! …still don’t believe me on this statement Yannick? Ask our friend Barrie Schwortz, he knows Rogers stated this.
I personally believe your right in that the scorch method should be dropped, as I’ve said before; It has been beaten to death, and proved unattainable through much study, but thats as far as I will go to backing your above statement.
“No good scientist closes his mind to any possiblity” is something one of my physics teachers once stated, and that includes a “Resurrection hypothesis”, whether we can grasp it or not.
Rogers believed that the Maillard reaction was “absolutely part of the equation” but was not, by itself, the answer to the image on the Shroud. He believed something else was at work in conjunction with it and was planning experiments to test this when he died.
Isn’t that what I said ;-) My writing skills, I’ll admit need some improvement, so it may not have come out sounding as I intended.
Thanks for clarifying the issue Barrie, and nice to see your still venturing on here periodically.
Do you mean Rogers was thinking of factors not mentioned in Thibault’s paper ?
Not in his writtings. It was more “off the record” that Rogers expressed his opinion about the high possibility that there was something else that was active at the moment of the image formation…
No Ron… It is a well-established FACT that a dead body CANNOT in any circumstances produced enough heat to scorch a linen cloth (or a thin layer of impurities on the surface). IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT JUST LIKE THE HEART TURN AROUND THE SUN IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
When did I ever say a dead body could produce the heat to scorch a linen cloth? If you remember my comments from previuos discussions on the topic, I do not agree that the body could have even reached the 40C mark speculated by some. i.e; to a natural causation. The image is not a scorch of any kind, by the way, that is my standing.
Then Ron, we both agree on this one thing ! At least, we can agree on something…
There was nothing “libellous” about my comment to Dan that a US court has ruled that “copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected `fair use’ of the copyrighted material.” That ruling would seem to apply to Colin’s accusation of “piracy” against Dan because Dan copied some online content from Colin’s blog. That is, Colin needs to first determine whether Dan’s use of Colin’s material comes under the “fair use” provision of US copyright law, before he make it a requirement or even an expectation that Dan (or anyone) has to seek Colin’s permission before they copy material from Colin’s blog.
As for Colin would have posted his reply to my blog, I didn’t make the comment on my blog. I don’t mention Colin on my blog, and I discourage commenters on it mentioning Colin so that he cannot claim he is being treated unfairly by being denied a right of reply.
The reason Colin is banned from my blog is because he repeatedly posted comments that were in breach of my stated policy against “off-topic, offensive or sub-standard” comments.
The reason why I mark as spam Colin’s further attempts to comment on my blog, knowing that he is banned from commenting on it, is because, in my opinion, that IS spam of my blog.
As for Colin’s “The man is a menace,” directed at me, I suggest Colin take a long, hard, look at himself in a mirror!
If it be or be not, what this sound like is, “waaaaah!”
For those interested in the scorch hypothesis, here’s what Baima Bollone wrote about that in his book 101 question on the Holy Shroud that he wrote in 2000: “Alan Adler have demonstrated that there was a substantial uniformity between the superficial alterations of the fibrils in the body image area and the zones affected by the fire of 1532. Besides the observations of Adler, if we compare a partially burned thread from the Shroud that come from the edge of a zone destroyed by the 1532 fire with a thread taken in the body image area, radical differences appeared. Threads affected by the fire show a carbonized edge. Image threads show alteration concentrated to the most superficial fibrils. To manufacture a shroud, it would need to find a system to extend a long piece of cloth of the dimension of the Shroud and keep it rigorously parallel to a big bas-relief maintained continuously at 220 degree Celcius. This requires a series of devices and mechanisms that could only be installed in a well equip and modern laboratory… Also, experiments clearly showed that the images obtained by heating a linen cloth tend to penetrate inside the fibers, while the image of the Shroud is restricted to their surface. Experimental images vanished with time, on the contrary to what happened for the Shroud. Finally, zones that were scorched by the fire are fluorescent, while the body image area on the Shroud are not. For all these reasons, it should be radically excluded that the image on the Shroud was produced by heat.”
This opinion of Baima Bollone look pretty much like the one I expressed yesterday, especially concerning the FACT that it would need modern technologies to create a complete body image (front and back) on a long piece of linen like the Shroud. And noticed that Baima Bollone don’t even mentioned the evidence of the bloodstains that show without a doubt that this Shroud is a real burial cloth of a real crucified body. And finally, here’s another important thing to remember that come from Ray Rogers : If the chromophore of the image is really a thin layer of impurities residing on-top of the most superficial fibers of the Shroud, it is almost impossible that heat (or any other kind of energetic radiation) could have affected ONLY this thin layer of impurity while leaving the surface of the linen fiber undamaged and clean like it was seen with the ghosts of color or after the color had been reduced with a strong chemical reagent.
So, it’s up to you to still lose your time with this impossible hypothesis in the context of a Byzantine or medieval forgery. And as I said, in the context of the Resurrection of Christ, this idea of a heating of the cloth is almost as untenable because of the reasons mentioned by Baima Bollone above and also, if Rogers hypothesis of the chromophore is true, this kind of supernatural heating would also have to be considered almost impossible…
And concerning the comment of Barrie Schwortz, I knew that Rogers thought that there was another process going on but after reading all of his writing, you can be sure that he never considered heat as a possible solution, especially in the context of the chromophore being ONLY a thin layer of impurities on the surface of the fiber… So, what can be this other process ? I think science should look at possible biological-chemical reactions that could occured between a crucified body that has been tortured for hours prior to death and the thin layer of impurities postulated by Rogers. Why not checking out more deeply the Volckringer pattern process ? Maybe that could give us some clues ? Just a thought like that…
Rogers said something interesting about the scorch hypothesis in his book : “Heat and radiation of suffiscient intensity to color cellulose all the way through the thickness of the cloth would not be limited to producing a color on the back of the cloth in the region of the hair. We would expect to see color in the center of the cloth. WE DO NOT.”
So, we can say that if there really is a superficial body image of the hair on the back of the cloth as describe by Fanti in one of his paper, it will be a very good scientific proof that heat had nothing to do with the image formation process. Of course, the “if” is important because we cannot consider the conclusion of Fanti as definitive… Anyway, that’s another argument that can well be very good against this particular hypothesis (or any other hypothesis involving other kinds of energetic radiations).
Elsewhere in his book, Rogers add: “The lower density of the hair makes it UNLIKELY that large amounts of either HEAT OR RADIATION WOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IN THE HAIR.”
And in another place in his book, we can read this comment that Rogers consider to be a FACT: “Image formation proceeded at NORMAL TEMPERATURES in the absence of energetic radiation of any kind.”
And don’t forget the other important argument of Rogers concerning heat or other types of energetic radiations : “I studied the chemical kinetics of the impurity materials and conclude that it was improbable that the impurities had been scorched by heat or any radiation source : the crystal structure of the flax image fibers was NO MORE DEFECTIVE than non-image fibers. It would take very good temperature control specifically to scorch impurities without producing some defects in the cellulose.”
So, after taking account of what Baima Bollone and Rogers said about scorch and heat, can we please start looking in another more rational direction (I think possible biological-chemical reactions between a thin layer of impurities and a fresh tortured corpse are the right place to start searching) in order to find a proper answer to the “mystery” of the body image ???
It wasn’t quite as ‘off the record’ has you state Yannick and it wasn’t just a ‘high possibility that there was something else”, he was ‘definative’ in his statement that the maillard reaction ALONE could not have produced the image with all it’s properties, and that most definately there was another ‘factor’ (something else) involved!. What this ‘other factor’ was, I don’t think Rogers ever mentioned in any papers or what exactly he thought it may be, atleast I’ve never heard of any. Maybe he had mentioned so to others close to him. Maybe even Barrie schwortz…?
Barrie did Rogers ever give you any clues to what this “something else” was?
Oh yeah Ron ??? Really ??? Then please show me ONE (I repeat : ONE) single quote from all the Rogers writings where he specifically said so ! I have read everything he wrote about the Shroud (especially the paper recently published by Thibault and his book in which he explain in details his hypothesis) and I NEVER saw him saying that it should have been something else at work during the image formation process in order to produce the kind of image that we can see on the cloth. Not even one quote ! So, if I miss something, please give me the quote along with the proper reference.
Saying a personal opinion off the record and writting it down in a scientifical article or in a book like he published is TWO VERY DIFFERENT THING my friend… This has not the same value at all.
It was not written Yannick because he passed away very shortly afterward and as Barrie stated Rogers was planning more experiments to find this ‘something else’ or atleast test his hypothesis of it. So it may be conscrued that (IT) would have been mentioned it in his next paper. It is pretty obvious he had second thoughts on the matter that a maillard reaction on it’s own would not create the image and mentioned in his original paper that his maillard hypothesis was not PROVEN, I think that could be taken as he may have already known before finishing his paper, that it was not sufficient to cause the image.
Also that is a pretty cheap argument Yannick, especially when you now know; My original statement was accurate and backed by Barrie here, that Rogers did in fact ‘verbally mention’ that the Maillard reaction could NOT “on it’s own” be the cause of the image. It wouldn’t be the first time Rogers would change his mind or admit he could be wrong, initially.
Again, don’t get me wrong, I highly respect Ray Rogers. Not only for his works, but him personally. He was atleast BIG enough to sometimes admit he could or was wrong, unlike many other scientists, and the ‘patch’ theory by Benford and Marino is a good example of this.
I have a hard time to convince myself that Rogers would have written the personal opinion he expressed to Barries in a scientific paper before he could have managed to fully tested his gaseous diffusion hypothesis.
By the way, even if the idea that something else could have been at work inside the Shroud to produce the image is correct, it is truly possible that this other thing could also have been another chemical reaction between another biological product (urea, lactic acid, oxygen molecules, etc., etc.) and the layer of impurities that could have also produced a Maillard reaction (or another similar chemical reaction producing the same type of color).
Initially, he was unequivocal “we can now formally propose a completely natural hypothesis for image formation”. And his long message sent to the SSG (in the early days of his theory ?) was clear on the main factors involved.
Then, it seems something changed and blurred his message (temperature ?, origin and unlikely path of amines ?) which urged him to admit the limit of his theory and that “something else” was needed.
But I may be wrong and since the very beginning (2003 Melanoidins’ paper and SSG message) he could have been thinking of “something else”.
Read the message I just wrote to Ron just above. Honestly, I don’t remember having read even once Rogers saying what Barrie told. That’s why it was only a personal opinion he expressed to his friend Barrie more than anything else. This should never be taken as some kind of proof that the image formation process he proposed is no good or is incomplete. These kinds of conclusions can only be acheived by laboratory experiments done PROPERLY and on a very wide range of possible conditions.
Ok. My point was to have more details concerning the timing of his various papers and wether he changed his mind concerning the origin of the reactive amines, because the nature of the heavy amines is not of much importance, but their origin is.
It seems he initially (at least if his SSG message is anterior to his book) set it on the skin : “the amount [of heavy amines] that appears at the surface of the skin will
increase on a time scale of days […] the image of the body surface was almost certainly a result of heavy amines from the tissues.”
But in his book, I can no longer find a clear origin of the heavy amines at the surface of the skin. And obviously, if a siginificant part of the heavy amines diffused out through the nose and mouth, “something else” is needed.
I always thought that the heavy amines could be released by every pores of the skin but in the paper written by Thibault in 2007, I think his researches told him that this was not necessarily true. One thing’s for sure : more experiment in labs are needed. Maybe the “something else” could well be the urea left on the skin by the evaporation of the high amount of sweat (interesting hypothesis written by Thibault in the same 2007 paper)… Maybe also this could be a molecular transfer of lactic acid that would also have been present (almost sure) in the sweat and blood of someone who died like the man of the Shroud. There’s also another interesting hypothesis that was proposed years ago by English Dr. Alan Mills about a possible molecular transfer of singlet oxygen molecules coming from the superficial cells of the skin… As you can see, there’s many biological-chemical interactions that could have been at work at the same time inside the Shroud and more research is truly needed to verify all these hypothesis properly. So far, all these hypothesis (except the one from Rogers) have not really been tested in a laboratory and only exist in their theoretical state. I think a bio-chemist would certainly be the right person to made some lab experiments.
As I wrote before, if Colin can get his complaint about shroud science before the Royal Society it will be wonderful for shroud science.
It does seem to me, however, that what Colin is doing, in trying to argue that a faint image is superficial is very unscientific. For the jpeg he has created ( http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/scorching-with-time-as-independent-variable1.jpg ) he provides the following caption. “Effect of decreasing temperature v contact time on scorch intensity and likely degree of superficiality”.
Likely? Why not examine it with a microscope?
“Lacking as I do a microscope,” he writes, “I cannot check for superficiality at a microscopic level, but I see no reason why a scorch image should not show the same superficiality . . .” He then invites others to disprove him. “If anyone who has a microscope disagrees, then they are at liberty to check that assumption.”
This would be like a man who upon looking at the surface of a vast lake declares the world is flat and invites anyone who has the means to disagree. This is not how science is done. The ball is in his court. Who does he think he is fooling? He goes so far, doing half of an experiment here and half of an experiment there, without even a microscope, to say that his hypothesis is worthy of being called a theory. Such arrogance is astounding.
Dr. Colin Berry, PhD, lifelong chemist, retired biomedical researcher, “previously Head of Nutrition and Food Safety at FMBRA,” certainly knows someone with access to all manner of microscopes to examine his linen experiments. He could mail his samples to any number of people. Would he trust capable people in the shroud community. If not, there are any number of scientists at CSICOP or JREF who would be delighted to help him. He could, with an index card and a thumb tack, or with the power of Twitter, find dozens of capable college students who would be delighted to prepare some photomicrographs in order to advance the cause of skepticism.
Colin could tease apart a lightly scorched thread and see if the image is confined to the top two or three fibrils. He could show us how he is able to remove the discoloration with adhesive tape. And, of course, with photographic images of the coloration, he could show us how truly superficial, and on a scale like the shroud, a heat produced colorization is.
Colin alludes to the work of others in his draft of a letter to the president of the Royal Society to complain about the state of shroud science. He alludes to the work others. That is fine. Let me just mention two.
Dr. Nicholas P L Allen was quite convinced that the image was a proto-photograph. He explained how “after immersion in an ammonia solution, most of the silver is removed from the linen cloth, and the resultant straw-yellow image is formed not by the presence of silver but by a structural (chemical) alteration to the linen (cellulose) itself. He championed his hypothesis. He did the work to satisfy himself and to try an convince others. Unfortunately, the full-sized image he created does not meet all of the characteristics of the image on the shroud and very few people buy into his hypothesis. Nonetheless, curiously perhaps or because of human nature or something like that, I think he still believes he is right. But he is to be applauded for his efforts.
Dr. Luigi Garlaschelli argued that a forger used powdered ochre and a combination of three techniques (frottage, free-hand and bas relief rubbing) to form the image. He thought that trace amounts of humic acids, salts and other organic compounds in the ochre chemically etched the cloth leaving an image as the powdered ochre fell away over time. Unfortunately, the full-sized image he created does not meet all of the characteristics of the image on the shroud and few people buy into his hypothesis. Nonetheless, curiously perhaps or because of human nature or something like that, I think he still believes he is right. But he is to be applauded for his efforts.
By way of contrast Colin writes, “Let me now briefly explain why I feel the time has come for RS members to get involved – as adjudicators between a broad separation in to two rival camps – the major pro-authenticity camp that rejects any idea of the Shroud being a thermal scorch, and the “voice crying in the sindonological wilderness” camp – with a present membership of 1 – name appended at end – that says the Shroud image IS simply a thermal imprint, due to direct contact and passage of conducted heat between template and linen.” Curiously perhaps or because of human nature or something like that, I think he believes he is right even though he can do little more than say it seems likely, dare others to prove him wrong or claim to be the new Isaiah of shroud science.
Why doesn’t Colin just buy a microscope? and while he is at it, purchase some ‘Ancient Syrian linen’ or a good quality facsimile, as he ‘should’ be aware, scientifically speaking; experimenting on modern manufactured linen will tell him nothing of importance or anything that could be accepted by any peers in any scorching hypothesis…But he must also never forget to reflect on the issue of the blood, as in the blood was on the Shroud first, before the image…and how this can be explained.
Clever comment Ron. That was exactly the purpose of my recent paper that was published on shroudn.com and on the website of the Holy Shroud Guild ! On the question of the authenticity of the Shroud and on the question of the image formation process, people ALWAYS tend to neglect the great set of data that comes from the blood and serum stains… Like I wrote in my paper, this great set of data is well enough for science to give us 2 very important conclusions about the Shroud :
1- THE SHROUD IS NOT AN ARTWORK OF ANY KIND, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE BLOODSTAINS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT IT IS A REAL BURIAL SHROUD THAT ENVELOPED, FOR LESS THAN 72 HOURS, A REAL MAN WHO WAS TORTURED, SCOURGED, CROWNED WITH THORNS AND DIED BY CRUCIFIXION.
2- THE BODY IMAGE ON THE SHROUD MUST ABSOLUTELY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY SOME FORM OF INTERRACTION BETWEEN THE CLOTH AND THIS TORTURED AND CRUCIFIED BODY.
I’m sorry for all the Colins of the world but these conclusion are solid enough to categorically reject the scorch hypothesis proposed by Colin and others along the years.
So, can we please start to concentrate of possible natural image formation processes that are related to some kind of interaction between a crucified body that has been tortured for a long period of time and an ancient linen cloth that most probably contain a thin layer of carbohydrates and polysaccharides impurities on his surface ? If Shroud researchers really want to do science properly (i.e. a science that contain absolutely no religious bias), that where they should look in order to solve this “mystery”. I’m truly convinced of that.
Well Yannick, whatever this “other thing” was I’m pretty sure if Rogers was going to work on it, it would be mentioned in his next paper, (that is of course assuming he was right on whatever this ‘other thing’ was and his test results came out positive) Otherwise maybe he wouldn’t write it into his next paper. Also; I think you are confusing the issue; What I understand from Roger’s comment, is that he meant this ‘something else’ was working in ‘conjunction’ with the maillard reaction to form the body image, not a completely seperate chemical reaction, but in unison….I’m not going to speculate on what this ‘something else’ may have been though.
Does anyone know the date of his long SSG message ?
Comments are closed.